The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than eight months.

Provided, That the above punishment shall be imposed for two years from the date this judgment became final and conclusive.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The facts charged in this case’s indictment is unlawful, since the amount of damage to each victim and each victim is not specified for each embezzlement.

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below which convicted the defendant is erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles.

B. The sentence of imprisonment (eight months of imprisonment) imposed by the court below on the defendant is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. Prior to the judgment on the grounds for appeal of this case ex officio, the public prosecutor examined ex officio prior to the judgment on the grounds for appeal of this case, and the public prosecutor applied for changes to the indictment of this case as stated in the following facts constituting a crime. Since this court permitted this, the subject of the judgment of the court below is different, the judgment below cannot be maintained.

However, the defendant's assertion of misunderstanding legal principles is still subject to the judgment of this court, despite the above reasons for ex officio reversal.

B. The part of the charge of embezzlement as alleged in the misapprehension of legal principles is a separate crime against each victim, so it is clear that each victim should be punished for each victim in case of multiple victims. However, the purport of the law that specifies the facts charged by specifying the date, time, place, and method of the crime is to facilitate the defendant's exercise of his/her right of defense. As such, it is sufficient that the facts charged are stated to the extent that the facts constituting the crime can be distinguished from other facts by taking account of these factors into account. Even if the date, place, and method of the crime are not explicitly stated in the indictment, it does not go against the extent mentioned above, and if it is deemed that the general indication is inevitable in light of the nature of the crime charged, and if it is deemed that the defendant's right of defense is not impeded, the indictment